niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: This is explained a little more in the Novel, and is easier to understand with the hindsight of knowing Plutarch Heavensbee was subversively finding ways to assist the tributes who were complicit in the revolution... It doesn't explicitly state 'Plutarch did this because of this and this...' because that would be terrible clunky writing, and Collins is a much better writer than most people will give her credit for... it just takes a little logic and deduction. The 'Lightning Tree' is in the section of the Arena which endures a lightning storm within its hour. The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location, which obviously is of benefit to Beetee. Furthermore, it is a clear and concise way for the tributes to keep track of what time it is, even if they aren't anywhere near the section that is enduring it's 'hour'. It's the equivalent of Big Ben striking 12. It's never pro-filmically shown that Beetee had discussed a plan with Heavensbee beforehand, but it's interesting that Beetee is insistent on carrying around that spool of electrical wire throughout most of the film. It's quite an encumbrance to keep hold of, 'just in-case', so it could be inferred that Beetee had the plan all along.  <sep>  Q: Was there a purpose for the lightning tree in Catching Fire? A: The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location  Q: Is the point of the tree just to scare them? A: It doesn't explicitly state  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How does the tree affect the way the tributes play the game?
Output: No
CONTEXT: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams. While it may be part of the con at that point it sounds real. He tells about his brother's dream to do the perfect con, about making the made-up story true, and how he thinks Stephen might have even liked it to have died at midnight on a beach during a trip to Jakarta as that would be something "real". Bloom then tells Penelope that it is a trap to try to make your own story true. Dying for his brother, to complete the story, does fit into this pattern. Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name; he is the main person of the movie. Stephen is the creator of a story for his brother; his job is done at the end of the movie. Of course that is an explanation that only works in movies; in reality stories and lives rarely have fixed and clear starts and ends. The death of a character in a movie is a clear symbol that his part is completed. The character in this movie served a single purpose, to care for the happiness of his brother; by making the story real he spares the couple to start their relationship on a lie.  <sep>  Q: Did Stephen really get what he wanted?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams. While it may be part of the con at that point it sounds real. He tells about his brother's dream to do the perfect con, about making the made-up story true, and how he thinks Stephen might have even liked it to have died at midnight on a beach during a trip to Jakarta as that would be something "real". Bloom then tells Penelope that it is a trap to try to make your own story true. Dying for his brother, to complete the story, does fit into this pattern. Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name; he is the main person of the movie. Stephen is the creator of a story for his brother; his job is done at the end of the movie. Of course that is an explanation that only works in movies; in reality stories and lives rarely have fixed and clear starts and ends. The death of a character in a movie is a clear symbol that his part is completed. The character in this movie served a single purpose, to care for the happiness of his brother; by making the story real he spares the couple to start their relationship on a lie.  <sep>  Q: Did Stephen really get what he wanted? A: Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did bloom want to say with her quote?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams. While it may be part of the con at that point it sounds real. He tells about his brother's dream to do the perfect con, about making the made-up story true, and how he thinks Stephen might have even liked it to have died at midnight on a beach during a trip to Jakarta as that would be something "real". Bloom then tells Penelope that it is a trap to try to make your own story true. Dying for his brother, to complete the story, does fit into this pattern. Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name; he is the main person of the movie. Stephen is the creator of a story for his brother; his job is done at the end of the movie. Of course that is an explanation that only works in movies; in reality stories and lives rarely have fixed and clear starts and ends. The death of a character in a movie is a clear symbol that his part is completed. The character in this movie served a single purpose, to care for the happiness of his brother; by making the story real he spares the couple to start their relationship on a lie.  <sep>  Q: Did Stephen really get what he wanted? A: Stephen says that it was always only about Bloom, and it is certainly not a coincidence that Bloom is the one who is called by the Family name  Q: What did bloom want to say with her quote? A: When Bloom and Penelope got attracted and talked aboard the Fidele, Bloom told about his brother and his dreams  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Stephen really want to die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish): Yes. Walt wants Jesse to think that Gus poisoned Brock so Jesse will help him kill Gus. Now, for this to work, he needs Gus to have some plausible motivation. The one that makes the most sense is that Gus poisoned Brock so that Jesse would kill Walt out of anger. From Gus' point of view, this is ideal as Jesse was the one holding Gus back from killing Walt — If Jesse himself kills Walt then this is out of the question. Now, for this constructed fantasy to work, when Jesse comes to Walt's house, he must have the opportunity to kill Walt. Only then can Walt feign that he thinks that Jesse has come to kill him and put forward the argument that Gus manipulated Jesse into this position so that Walt would be killed. To this end, Walt left the gun on the couch on purpose.  <sep>  Q: Jesse was mad at Walt and Walt left the gun on the couch, was that intentional?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish): Yes. Walt wants Jesse to think that Gus poisoned Brock so Jesse will help him kill Gus. Now, for this to work, he needs Gus to have some plausible motivation. The one that makes the most sense is that Gus poisoned Brock so that Jesse would kill Walt out of anger. From Gus' point of view, this is ideal as Jesse was the one holding Gus back from killing Walt — If Jesse himself kills Walt then this is out of the question. Now, for this constructed fantasy to work, when Jesse comes to Walt's house, he must have the opportunity to kill Walt. Only then can Walt feign that he thinks that Jesse has come to kill him and put forward the argument that Gus manipulated Jesse into this position so that Walt would be killed. To this end, Walt left the gun on the couch on purpose.  <sep>  Q: Why did Walt leave his gun on the couch when Jesse came to confront him?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish): Yes. Walt wants Jesse to think that Gus poisoned Brock so Jesse will help him kill Gus. Now, for this to work, he needs Gus to have some plausible motivation. The one that makes the most sense is that Gus poisoned Brock so that Jesse would kill Walt out of anger. From Gus' point of view, this is ideal as Jesse was the one holding Gus back from killing Walt — If Jesse himself kills Walt then this is out of the question. Now, for this constructed fantasy to work, when Jesse comes to Walt's house, he must have the opportunity to kill Walt. Only then can Walt feign that he thinks that Jesse has come to kill him and put forward the argument that Gus manipulated Jesse into this position so that Walt would be killed. To this end, Walt left the gun on the couch on purpose.  <sep>  Q: Jesse was mad at Walt and Walt left the gun on the couch, was that intentional? A: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Jesse lear that Brock had been poisoned?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish): Yes. Walt wants Jesse to think that Gus poisoned Brock so Jesse will help him kill Gus. Now, for this to work, he needs Gus to have some plausible motivation. The one that makes the most sense is that Gus poisoned Brock so that Jesse would kill Walt out of anger. From Gus' point of view, this is ideal as Jesse was the one holding Gus back from killing Walt — If Jesse himself kills Walt then this is out of the question. Now, for this constructed fantasy to work, when Jesse comes to Walt's house, he must have the opportunity to kill Walt. Only then can Walt feign that he thinks that Jesse has come to kill him and put forward the argument that Gus manipulated Jesse into this position so that Walt would be killed. To this end, Walt left the gun on the couch on purpose.  <sep>  Q: Jesse was mad at Walt and Walt left the gun on the couch, was that intentional? A: Spoilers if you have not seen season 4 episode 13 (not sure if this should be in a spoiler block, remove if you wish  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Jesse went to Walt's house to confront him, was Walt holding a gun in his hand when he opened the door?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith? A: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: how did the first one die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith? A: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human  Q: how did the first one die? A: When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: when Agent Smith turned Neo into his copy. How did the main computer realize that?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith? A: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human  Q: how did the first one die? A: When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be  Q: when Agent Smith turned Neo into his copy. How did the main computer realize that? A: Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the name of this movie again?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith? A: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human  Q: how did the first one die? A: When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be  Q: when Agent Smith turned Neo into his copy. How did the main computer realize that? A: Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source  Q: what is the name of this movie again? A: matrix  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: did the main computer realize they were copies
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human. The primary difference in the end was that Neo was hardwired to the source and not jacked in from a regular pod or an illegal back door entry. When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be undone across the Matrix. In short, Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source.  <sep>  Q: How did they kill Agent Smith? A: There were multiple Smiths that had assimilated on the other entities inside the matrix, both software and human  Q: how did the first one die? A: When Smith assimilated on Neo, the machines get a hold of Smith's replication programming. This enables them to target and destroy the Smith program which causes the replication to be  Q: when Agent Smith turned Neo into his copy. How did the main computer realize that? A: Smith had turned into a replicating worm which the machines couldn't get a lock on until the replication occurred on an entity (Neo) connected directly from the source  Q: what is the name of this movie again? A: matrix  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: who is the main star?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Jon Snow is a man of honor. It's part of his core personality. His own personal care is less important for him than being honorable and doing the right thing for the people. Running away after killing someone (no matter who or what the reasons are) is a very cowardly act, so it's against his very nature. Also keep in mind he didn't try to run away from the dragon, but instead faced it and was fully prepared to be burned alive as a consequence of his actions. Another point is the "right thing for the people" part. Suppose he would have fled and the people found out about what happened when he's away. The Unsullied would surely act against the people, and likely many people would die until peace is somehow restored.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jon Snow admit his fault in S08E06?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Jon Snow is a man of honor. It's part of his core personality. His own personal care is less important for him than being honorable and doing the right thing for the people. Running away after killing someone (no matter who or what the reasons are) is a very cowardly act, so it's against his very nature. Also keep in mind he didn't try to run away from the dragon, but instead faced it and was fully prepared to be burned alive as a consequence of his actions. Another point is the "right thing for the people" part. Suppose he would have fled and the people found out about what happened when he's away. The Unsullied would surely act against the people, and likely many people would die until peace is somehow restored.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jon Snow admit his fault in S08E06? A: Jon Snow is a man of honor. It's part of his core personality  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did JOn Snow kill Daenerys?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Jon Snow is a man of honor. It's part of his core personality. His own personal care is less important for him than being honorable and doing the right thing for the people. Running away after killing someone (no matter who or what the reasons are) is a very cowardly act, so it's against his very nature. Also keep in mind he didn't try to run away from the dragon, but instead faced it and was fully prepared to be burned alive as a consequence of his actions. Another point is the "right thing for the people" part. Suppose he would have fled and the people found out about what happened when he's away. The Unsullied would surely act against the people, and likely many people would die until peace is somehow restored.  <sep>  Q: Why did Jon Snow admit his fault in S08E06? A: Jon Snow is a man of honor. It's part of his core personality  Q: Did JOn Snow kill Daenerys? A: Running away after killing someone  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Could JOn have covered it up?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors? A: The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did the Indominus REx fight with the T-Rex?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors? A: The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands  Q: Why did the Indominus REx fight with the T-Rex? A: the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did the Indominus Rex eat its sibling?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors? A: The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands  Q: Why did the Indominus REx fight with the T-Rex? A: the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior  Q: Why did the Indominus Rex eat its sibling? A: The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Claire observe about the Indominus Rex?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors? A: The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands  Q: Why did the Indominus REx fight with the T-Rex? A: the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior  Q: Why did the Indominus Rex eat its sibling? A: The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Was anything a threat to the Indominus Rex?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I think the link from Napoleon Wilson provides valuable insight. Another consideration is the Indominus' intelligence. As it was already mentioned the canon establishes the Velociraptor as an intelligent creature that communicates and coordinates to attack prey, the T-Rex sees no such treatment. In the first film these two species are juxtaposed with one another to demonstrate the raw intelligence of the raptor which infers the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior. The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain. The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves. The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands, where the T-Rex might not listen or might not even be at the capacity to communicate with it.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the Indominus Rex eat or kill the Velociraptors? A: The creature could know that the raptors are more able and more willing to follow commands  Q: Why did the Indominus REx fight with the T-Rex? A: the T-Rex is in some way intellectually inferior  Q: Why did the Indominus Rex eat its sibling? A: The T-Rex is a doer, not a thinker; brute not brain  Q: What did Claire observe about the Indominus Rex? A: The Indominus is also hyper intelligent, perhaps moreso than the raptors themselves  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did they communicate?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I have Walter Mitty on vudu, and it does not have the first ending you mention, only the second happier ending. Interestingly, I can think of a movie that has the exact ending you mentioned, starring Brendan Fraser, called Bedazzled. In it, the protagonist is in love with a woman from work, he is granted several wishes by Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil and all of them are based around this woman but go disastrously wrong, and in the end asks out his co-worker who politely declines as she is in a relationship. The movie ends with him meeting a new neighbor that he begins dating.  <sep>  Q: Does "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" have two endings? A: it does not have the first ending you mention, only the second happier ending  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the real ending?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I have Walter Mitty on vudu, and it does not have the first ending you mention, only the second happier ending. Interestingly, I can think of a movie that has the exact ending you mentioned, starring Brendan Fraser, called Bedazzled. In it, the protagonist is in love with a woman from work, he is granted several wishes by Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil and all of them are based around this woman but go disastrously wrong, and in the end asks out his co-worker who politely declines as she is in a relationship. The movie ends with him meeting a new neighbor that he begins dating.  <sep>  Q: Does "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" have two endings? A: it does not have the first ending you mention, only the second happier ending  Q: What is the real ending? A: The movie ends  Q: Does the Blu-ray contain a different ending than netflix? A: in the end  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is this the mandela-berenstein effect?
Output: No
CONTEXT: There is a part in the episode at approx 12:30 where Kirk asks the Guardian if they are successful what will happen. The Guardian tells them all will be set back to normal and they will be returned as though nothing happened. The Guardian sends them back. Also notice they come back with uniforms back on, where at the point in the episode, Kirk and Spock do not have theirs on. Edit addition: To clarify something to bring this all together for you. How did Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go through the portal in the first place? They jumped. They jumped in, McCoy first, followed by Kirk and Spock. They came back in the same manner, only Spock and Kirk come back first because they entered the timeline first. The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet. Scotty also says to them, "You just left." The Guardian puts them back just as he found them, jumping through the portal.  <sep>  Q: How did they get back in “City on the Edge of Forever”?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is a part in the episode at approx 12:30 where Kirk asks the Guardian if they are successful what will happen. The Guardian tells them all will be set back to normal and they will be returned as though nothing happened. The Guardian sends them back. Also notice they come back with uniforms back on, where at the point in the episode, Kirk and Spock do not have theirs on. Edit addition: To clarify something to bring this all together for you. How did Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go through the portal in the first place? They jumped. They jumped in, McCoy first, followed by Kirk and Spock. They came back in the same manner, only Spock and Kirk come back first because they entered the timeline first. The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet. Scotty also says to them, "You just left." The Guardian puts them back just as he found them, jumping through the portal.  <sep>  Q: How did they get back in “City on the Edge of Forever”? A: They jumped  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How is that possible if there wasn't a portal on their end?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is a part in the episode at approx 12:30 where Kirk asks the Guardian if they are successful what will happen. The Guardian tells them all will be set back to normal and they will be returned as though nothing happened. The Guardian sends them back. Also notice they come back with uniforms back on, where at the point in the episode, Kirk and Spock do not have theirs on. Edit addition: To clarify something to bring this all together for you. How did Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go through the portal in the first place? They jumped. They jumped in, McCoy first, followed by Kirk and Spock. They came back in the same manner, only Spock and Kirk come back first because they entered the timeline first. The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet. Scotty also says to them, "You just left." The Guardian puts them back just as he found them, jumping through the portal.  <sep>  Q: How did they get back in “City on the Edge of Forever”? A: They jumped  Q: How is that possible if there wasn't a portal on their end? A: The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I really want to understand how they got back...can you explain more?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is a part in the episode at approx 12:30 where Kirk asks the Guardian if they are successful what will happen. The Guardian tells them all will be set back to normal and they will be returned as though nothing happened. The Guardian sends them back. Also notice they come back with uniforms back on, where at the point in the episode, Kirk and Spock do not have theirs on. Edit addition: To clarify something to bring this all together for you. How did Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go through the portal in the first place? They jumped. They jumped in, McCoy first, followed by Kirk and Spock. They came back in the same manner, only Spock and Kirk come back first because they entered the timeline first. The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet. Scotty also says to them, "You just left." The Guardian puts them back just as he found them, jumping through the portal.  <sep>  Q: How did they get back in “City on the Edge of Forever”? A: They jumped  Q: How is that possible if there wasn't a portal on their end? A: The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet  Q: I really want to understand how they got back...can you explain more? A: jumping through the portal  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: It's okay, is there anything else you can tell me about City on the Edge of Forever?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: There is a part in the episode at approx 12:30 where Kirk asks the Guardian if they are successful what will happen. The Guardian tells them all will be set back to normal and they will be returned as though nothing happened. The Guardian sends them back. Also notice they come back with uniforms back on, where at the point in the episode, Kirk and Spock do not have theirs on. Edit addition: To clarify something to bring this all together for you. How did Kirk, Spock, and McCoy go through the portal in the first place? They jumped. They jumped in, McCoy first, followed by Kirk and Spock. They came back in the same manner, only Spock and Kirk come back first because they entered the timeline first. The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet. Scotty also says to them, "You just left." The Guardian puts them back just as he found them, jumping through the portal.  <sep>  Q: How did they get back in “City on the Edge of Forever”? A: They jumped  Q: How is that possible if there wasn't a portal on their end? A: The jumping motion was one contiguous motion as seen from the crew left on the planet  Q: I really want to understand how they got back...can you explain more? A: jumping through the portal  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How would it be possible for there to be a portal on their end?
Output: No
CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What Is a writing device?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  Q: What Is a writing device? A: far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is that the only reason?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  Q: What Is a writing device? A: far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives  Q: Is that the only reason? A: Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does his mother look like?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  Q: What Is a writing device? A: far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives  Q: Is that the only reason? A: Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description  Q: What does his mother look like? A: Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is she described this way?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As a writing device, it's far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives. Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description. Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig. Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent. Now imagine if we were to actually see Mrs. Wolowitz's reactions when Howard yells at her. Perhaps we would start to feel uncomfortable witnessing this coddled, well-off guy in his 20's, yelling at this morbidly obese, lonely woman. By not showing his mother, the audience can separate the charicature of the woman from the far less funny "reality."  <sep>  Q: Why is Howard Wolowitz' mother not shown in The Big Bang Theory? A: As a writing device  Q: What Is a writing device? A: far funnier to let the viewers imagination run away with the wild descriptions that Howard gives  Q: Is that the only reason? A: Additionally, by not showing Howards mother, the writers are able to characterize and describe her any way they like, without having to find an actor who lives up to that description  Q: What does his mother look like? A: Howard repeatedly describes his mother as having no neck, facial-hair that needs to be removed, and at one point, it was mentioned that she wears a wig  Q: Why is she described this way? A: Howards mother is essentially a charicature of an overbearing, overprotective, troubled but caring, single-parent  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why can't we see her?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash. So if Eduardo had only seen his first posts before heading to his dorm he may have been unaware of Mark's hacking later.  <sep>  Q: How is Eduardo unaware of the progress on Face Mash?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash. So if Eduardo had only seen his first posts before heading to his dorm he may have been unaware of Mark's hacking later.  <sep>  Q: How is Eduardo unaware of the progress on Face Mash? A: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What did Mark first blog about?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash. So if Eduardo had only seen his first posts before heading to his dorm he may have been unaware of Mark's hacking later.  <sep>  Q: How is Eduardo unaware of the progress on Face Mash? A: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash  Q: What did Mark first blog about? A: the breakup  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did EDuardo read the blog?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash. So if Eduardo had only seen his first posts before heading to his dorm he may have been unaware of Mark's hacking later.  <sep>  Q: How is Eduardo unaware of the progress on Face Mash? A: Perhaps it's because the breakup was one of the first things Mark blogged about, and it was only later in the night that he blogged about how he was creating Face Mash  Q: What did Mark first blog about? A: the breakup  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Mark write the blog alone?
Output: No
CONTEXT: As noted in the comments, as seen during the events of Captain America, Winter Soldier, Hydra had infiltrated every level of SHIELD by the 2010s. We know that SHIELD was already doing alien weapon research (The Destroyer weapon that Coulson used) and Hydra Tesseract weapon research (Hydra guns Cap found on the helicarrier). They even "converted" Hydra scientists, like Arnim Zola, whom in turn decided to poison SHIELD from the inside. By 2010s, Hydra agents were everywhere, from low level rank and file, special agents (Jasper Sitwell), elite soldiers (STRIKE team leader Brock Rumlow), the World Security Council (Alexander Pierce), and even senators (Senator Stern, the prick from Iron Man). These two factors combined, would have meant SHIELD either intentionally set up to study the Leviathan for further benefit, or Hydra intercepted it, as they did the Scepter in the Winter Soldier stinger. It's highly likely that the Hydra base was a black site bankrolled by SHIELD until it collapsed.  <sep>  Q: How do HYDRA get the Leviathan to Strucker's base?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As noted in the comments, as seen during the events of Captain America, Winter Soldier, Hydra had infiltrated every level of SHIELD by the 2010s. We know that SHIELD was already doing alien weapon research (The Destroyer weapon that Coulson used) and Hydra Tesseract weapon research (Hydra guns Cap found on the helicarrier). They even "converted" Hydra scientists, like Arnim Zola, whom in turn decided to poison SHIELD from the inside. By 2010s, Hydra agents were everywhere, from low level rank and file, special agents (Jasper Sitwell), elite soldiers (STRIKE team leader Brock Rumlow), the World Security Council (Alexander Pierce), and even senators (Senator Stern, the prick from Iron Man). These two factors combined, would have meant SHIELD either intentionally set up to study the Leviathan for further benefit, or Hydra intercepted it, as they did the Scepter in the Winter Soldier stinger. It's highly likely that the Hydra base was a black site bankrolled by SHIELD until it collapsed.  <sep>  Q: How do HYDRA get the Leviathan to Strucker's base? A: By 2010s, Hydra agents were everywhere, from low level rank and file, special agents  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: how did they get the corpse past shield?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: As noted in the comments, as seen during the events of Captain America, Winter Soldier, Hydra had infiltrated every level of SHIELD by the 2010s. We know that SHIELD was already doing alien weapon research (The Destroyer weapon that Coulson used) and Hydra Tesseract weapon research (Hydra guns Cap found on the helicarrier). They even "converted" Hydra scientists, like Arnim Zola, whom in turn decided to poison SHIELD from the inside. By 2010s, Hydra agents were everywhere, from low level rank and file, special agents (Jasper Sitwell), elite soldiers (STRIKE team leader Brock Rumlow), the World Security Council (Alexander Pierce), and even senators (Senator Stern, the prick from Iron Man). These two factors combined, would have meant SHIELD either intentionally set up to study the Leviathan for further benefit, or Hydra intercepted it, as they did the Scepter in the Winter Soldier stinger. It's highly likely that the Hydra base was a black site bankrolled by SHIELD until it collapsed.  <sep>  Q: How do HYDRA get the Leviathan to Strucker's base? A: By 2010s, Hydra agents were everywhere, from low level rank and file, special agents  Q: how did they get the corpse past shield? A: It's highly likely that the Hydra base was a black site bankrolled by SHIELD until it collapsed  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: why would shield bankroll them?
Output: Yes